Women migrants in Europe or North America have long started to
denounce the dangerous softness with which oppressive laws, customs and
practices against women, imported from our countries and cultures, are tolerated
or encouraged in the host countries, - in the name of tolerance, of respect of
the Other, of the right to difference, of putting at par different cultures or
religions, etc...

Like our
own governments, governments of the countries of immigration are prepared to
sell out the well being, the human rights and the civil rights of women, for the
sake of giving in to the migrant community, solely represented, everywhere in
the world, by its male members.

The
collusion of patriarchies transcends most of the bones of contention between
migrants and hosts.

This is
why, amongst the many laws and customs that could have been imported from the
migrants' culture, only those pertaining to women, the family and the private
sphere are viewed with such tolerance.

For
instance, no host country will tolerate the amputation of the limbs for thieves
(as is the law in countries such as Sudan, Pakistan and the Gulf countries),
while, a few years ago, the Dutch Parliament went so far as discussing the
possibility of allowing female genital mutilation on the Netherlands' soil for
those migrants who practice it in their home country! FGM has been tolerated and
performed in hospitals in Italy and in Britain.

One of
the major problems women face in their country of immigration is that liberals
and progressive people, for fear of being accused of racism and of imposing
their own cultural values, fail to take a feminist and human rights stand on
such issues - thus unwittingly participating in the construction of Otherness
(in our case “Muslimness”). By doing so they fit perfectly in the agenda of
fundamentalist forces whose major task at the moment is the construction and
imposition of a single uniform (be it religious, ethnic or cultural) identity
amongst the migrants.

We
present here two pieces: a declaration by Iranian women in Sweden which is an
outcry against cultural relativism in Europe. It is followed by a short ironical
piece, starting as a tale, in response to a special issue on racism of a German
feminist journal published in 1993.

A thirteen-year old girl is
murdered by her parents in Egypt because she did not wear the veil properly. A
teenage girl was killed by her Muslim father and brother in Sweden because she
would not marry the man chosen by her family. Taking into account the cultural
background of the family, the Swedish judicial system gives the offenders a
milder punishment. A girl is beaten to death by her mother, sister and brother
in Britain because a Muslim witch-hunter decided that she was possessed by evil
spirits. The British court ruled that the family of the girl did not intend to
kill her, they wanted to help her! There are many such horrendous events
happening against women all over the world daily.

The
issue is not that people do not know about them. The news of atrocities of all
kind, from war, starvation, mass murder to suppression of most basic human
rights reaches homes every day through the mass media. Who does not know that
women in Iran, for example are forced to obey Islamic rules which mean
suppression, humiliation and lack of rights for them?

Who does
not know that women are less than second class citizens in Islamic
countries?

The issue is not even feeling sorry
and sad for the people subjected to these atrocities. The issue under question
is the attitude that accepts these crimes as part of today's reality and further
justifies them by saying that "these people have chosen their own destiny";
"This is how they want to live"; "It is their culture"; "We have our own culture
and they have their own"; "We should respect their culture and do not interfere
in their affairs". In other words they say women in Iran enjoy not having the
right to divorce, the right of custody of their children, or having to wear the
veil, or getting permission from their husbands or fathers to get a job or
travel abroad! They are thrilled about the law which punishes them with stoning
or execution if they do not obey the anti women laws!

The
Islamic Republic of Iran sends its representatives to China to tell the world
that 1) women in Iran are as active and equal, if not more, as women in other
parts of the world; 2) even if there are some issues that show a view contrary
to the former, it is because of tradition and culture of the country. The
question here is who benefits from respecting different cultures? Is it the
woman who do not have rights or the State which relies on it medieval laws for
survival? Is it the 9 year old girl who, according to this "culture", is mature
enough to marry, or the representatives of the respecting government who sit in
the conference hall right now? We need not go further. Let us look at the issue
from another angle. If we are not supposed to interfere in other people's
affairs, it means that for example, when the government of a European country
closes nurseries or lowers wages, we should not protest and should accept it as
their business and culture! Who benefits from this passivity? Have you ever seen
parents of these kids cheer for the government or the workers thanking it for
less income? Obviously not.

Introducing and defending
any reactionary and suppressive measure against people in any circumstances and
especially under the name of respecting different cultures is condemned because
it is against humanity at large. One can not regionalize basic human rights. One
can not have thousands of sets of standards for women's rights. One can not
approve the provision of maternity leave as a progressive demand and right in
one country and believe that such right does not suit the people of another
country. One can not say war is bad but as long as I and my family are not
involved, the warring parts can fight as long as they want. One can not say
wearing the veil is a terrible thing but if these people want their little girls
wearing them, it is their business. Human rights and in its light, women's
rights, are international and character and substance. Why is it that
technology, spread of business and capital soon find their international role
and place even in the most backward tribal village but welfare, high standard
living, education etc. linger on for many years if introduced at all? When some
people in Europe are treated differently and excused because of their "culture"
not to follow general norms on non-segregation at schools and swimming classes,
then one can expect that women's rights are trampled on in their countries of
origin as a matter of routine. The victims of such policies are not restricted
to those who are involved directly, it is offensive to the whole humanity. In
this sense, violation of women's rights in Iran is a blow to women's rights
internationally.

It is in this spirit that
we:

• Condemn cultural
relativism and demand universal rights for women in Iran and all over the
world;

• Condemn the Islamic
Republic of Iran for its systematic harassment of women. So long as this
government is in power women are denied any rights in Iran;

• Demand
separation of religion from the State.

International Campaign for
the Defence of Women's Rights in Iran, Beijing, September
1995